Category Archives: South Carolina

Galivants Ferry I

1 Reply

06stump_016Mayor Bob needs to have a lo-o-ong talk with Mayor Frank.

Honestly, I don’t get the trolley thing. What it has to do with running for governor, I don’t know. But I know it didn’t work that great in Columbia, and I doubt it would work any better in Florence.

Anyway, I was struck by the fact that Mr. Willis had invested so much in signage. Unusual signage. Even innovative signage — although I have to say that the first thing I thought of when I saw this display was, "Jim Hodges. School bus. Breakfast-table issues." … and other stuff Mr. Hodges did when he was minority leader in the House, and later as gubernatorial candidate and then governor.

So it was kinda different, and kinda the same. And for a Democrat, the overall message thus conveyed was — forgive me — rather pedestrian.

Or perhaps I should say, "hackneyed."

Or perhaps I should go on to the next item.

Whom will we endorse?

16 Replies

As both a blogger and editorial page editor, and not exactly in that order, I can run into certain conflicts: If I use the blog to share my impressions of candidates as we wade through endorsement interviews, am I not risking giving away whom we are likely to endorse?

And yet if I don’t share such information from day to day, what’s the point in an editorial page editor having a blog? Isn’t that the (admittedly theoretical) value of the Weblog — that by virtue of my job, I have access to this kind of information? Shouldn’t you get something extra for going there to read it?

Last week, it struck me for the first time: Why the big mystery about whom we might endorse? I’ve written over and over that the point in a newspaper’s endorsement is the why, not the who. If you just glance at the picture and the headline, you’ve missed the point of that kind of editorial.

The benefit for the reader lies in pondering the reasons we give for the choice. (This is a fact easily lost on many of those who read my blog, unfortunately. Judging by their comments, many remain trapped in the phony left-right, Democratic-Republican, are-you-for-this-one-or-are-you-for-that-one dichotomy — which closes their minds to reason.)

The idea is that by reading our endorsements, and reading rebuttals, and thinking about whether you agree or disagree, should add depth to your own decision-making as a voter — whether you vote in the end for the candidate we endorsed or not.

Besides, trying to guess the eventual endorsement from what I write after an interview is inadequate on two levels: First, an endorsement consists not just of what I think, but of what a consensus of the editorial board arrives at. Besides, I could change my own mind as we go along. I once pulled back an endorsement that was on the page and headed for the press. (I had last-minute qualms, did a little more digging and consulted with my colleagues. We rewrote it and went with the other candidate. Neither of  them knows that to this day.)

So, that resolved, I put my initial, rough impressions of our first three candidates (out of 55 I’ll be interviewing for the June 13 primary), on the blog last week. In each case, we were interviewing challengers. When it works out, we try to bring them in first because we tend to know less about them, and this gives us more time to get up to speed.

I also put capsules of those blog posts in my column Sunday. Here are those minimal excerpts, but if you are at all interested (and I hope you are; state legislators are more likely to have a direct impact on your life than those folks in Washington that everyone loves to shout about), I highly recommend following the links to the much-longer full blog posts:

Artie White, H89, Republican.
I didn’t ask Mr. White (challenging Rep. Kenny Bingham of Lexington County) his age, but I know the approximate answer: Quite young. The nice thing about talking to a candidate so recently (two years) out of college is that he still remembers more than most politicians have forgotten about representative democracy and how it’s supposed to work.

Mr. White sets less store by party than his former boss, Joe Wilson (which is a good thing). When asked whether he would make a point of regularly voting with the GOP caucus, he said, “I don’t really think it’s important.”

His main issue? Eminent domain. “Property rights in this country… is the basis of a free country,” he pronounced.

Greatest strengths? Sincerely good intentions and good theoretical knowledge of how government is supposed to work. Greatest weaknesses? Youth and inexperience.

Sheri Few, H79, Republican.
Sheri Few of Kershaw County, who is challenging Bill Cotty for the Republican nomination in District 79, was our first challenger armed with money from school-“choice” advocates, going up against a vocal Republican opponent of Gov. Mark Sanford’s “Put Parents in Charge” plan: “I am a proponent of school choice,” she said. “We need to start treating parents as consumers.”

But she objects to being portrayed as some sort of tool of out-of-state ideologues. She notes that she has raised $30,000 for her race, with only $8,000 of it coming from outside South Carolina.
Why should voters choose her over her opponent? “A Republican should vote for me over Bill Cotty for a couple of reasons,” she said. “I am a conservative.”

She said with tax credits, private entities would set up various schools to address special needs, such as learning disabilities. I said I could see how that might happen in Columbia, where there was enough demand. But what would be the motivation for private enterprise to set up such choices in the areas where South Carolina’s greatest educational challenges lie — poor, sparsely populated counties?

“That’s an excellent question,” she said. “I haven’t really thought about that.”

Joe McEachern, H77, Democratic.
Mr. McEachern, a member of Richland County Council who is challenging Rep. John Scott, is a straightforward sort who goes his own way, as fellow council members can attest to their delight or chagrin.

For instance, when we asked how he would get things done in the House, as a minority member of the minority party, he said, “I’m not one of those folks that carry the banner.” He said that the best course for South Carolina is likely to be something that transcends party and race. As a result, at times he will disagree with the Legislative Black Caucus.

He sees no need for voters to elect the “long ballot” of statewide officials — or for that matter, the purely magisterial offices on the county level.

When he says that, “People say, ‘Oh, no …. We’ll never get an African-American elected” to statewide office if they become appointive. “Have we ever gotten an African-American elected?” he answers.

“Elect a governor and hold him accountable” for having a diverse Cabinet, he said. “That is the best way.”

More importantly, thanks to his experience in local government, he understands the crying need to get the state government — including county legislative delegations — out of local affairs. “We need to make a clean break,” he said. “Either you’re going to have Home Rule or you’re not.”

He said Rep. Scott “thinks it’s his seat,” and “takes it very personal that I’m running against him. But it’s not personal.”

He said folks in the district complain that Mr. Scott neglects them. By contrast, he says, Bill Cotty — the Republican who represents a neighboring House district — is “more hands on.” Mr. McEachern is indeed no typical banner-carrier.

Staton his case

7 Replies

This is just getting too trendy.

S.C. Superintendent of Education candidate Bob Staton has started a blog. Well, it’s sort of a blog — only three posts so far. But you can check it out, if you’re so inclined.

I think I’ll put it on my links, and then start adding other candidate links as they are brought to my attention. I’ve seen a few other sites so far and neglected to save the URLs. I guess the word "blog" grabbed my attention on this one.

So the gimmick worked.

‘New’ Democrats asking what YOU think

77 Replies

The S.C. Democratic Leadership Council is conducting what it calls the “First Ever e-Poll on ’08 Presidential Race and SC Issues.” Well, I certainly hope it’s the first one. I’d hate to think anybody around here was thinking about that stuff any earlier.

If you want to be heard, hurry. Results are to be announced at the state Democratic Party convention Saturday. Here’s the survey.

I probably won’t check to see the results myself. A “poll” such as this is meaningless. It’s not actually a poll in any statistically valid sense, since it will measure the views of only those people to whom notice was sent, and who decided to take part. If an advocacy group of any stripe conducts a “poll” publicly, don’t pay attention to it. They keep the polls that really tell them what’s going on to themselves.

I still go ahead and answer surveys like this, because of what it tells me about those who drafted it, and (sometimes) how it helps clarify my own thoughts.

Let’s run through this one:

It starts with the friendly message that “This e-survey is for everyone — not just Democrats.” I would have taken it anyway, but it’s nice to be invited. That’s one of the nice things about the DLC — unlike the party stalwarts who tried (but thanks to the last-minute heroics of party chairman Joe Ervin) failed to shut us independents out of their presidential primary in 2004, the “Third Way” Democrats are inclusive.

You remember the DLC, America’s answer to Tony Blair’s New Labour. They were all the rage in the 1990s, producing such relative centrists as Bill Clinton and Al Gore. By 2004, however, both parties had become so radicalized that DLC stalwart Joe Lieberman got crushed.

Anyway, here are my answers to the "poll":

1. “When thinking about the United States today, do you think we are generally on the” right track or wrong track? 2. Ditto for South Carolina.

I said "wrong track" on both.

The nation is trying to fail in Iraq and Afghanistan, with the war’s advocates underfunding it and committing huge blunders, and opponents doing all they can to undermine the country’s will to keep going. The record federal spending combined with massive tax cuts is sheer insanity. The lack of a sensible energy policy to free us from unreliable sources of petroleum is unconscionable. Then, of course, there’s “reality TV.”

In South Carolina, there is no political leadership even trying to chart a sensible course to train our population to attract more investment so we can all be healthier, wealthier and wiser. No effective leadership at all, and none on the horizon.

3. “What is the most important issue facing the United States today?” It’s the war. But, as I explained in the comments box, I’m for it. My concern is to win. I wanted to make sure no one counted my checking “the Iraq war” as meaning “that awful mess.” One must be specific.

4. The “most important issue” in South Carolina? “Improving K-12 education system” was one of the six choices, but I wrote in, “The whole education system, K-grad school.”

5. The second most important S.C. issue? I wrote in “Economic development (broader than just jobs)” rather than check “Reducing poverty,” “Getting more and better jobs,” or “Improving the general quality of life.”

Of course, education and ecodevo are the same thing.

6. “If you were ‘king for a day’ in South Carolina and could do any one thing to improve our state, what would it be?” I answered, “Reform the tax code so that it adequately and fairly funds essential service.” It’s beginning to look like it might require the intervention of a monarch to do that, since the deliberative process is failing so miserably in that task.

7. “If the Democratic Presidential Primary were held today, who would you vote for?” I didn’t answer, since no one on the list would be a “first choice” for me.

8. “Who would be your second choice?” Joe Biden. The rest I either wouldn’t ever vote for, or don’t yet know enough about.

9. “When your children – or other young people today – grow up, do you think they will be better off than you are today?” Yes. Despite my answers on 1 and 2, I have to believe we can do better.

10. “In South Carolina today, what do you think is the biggest barrier to our future success — what is holding us back from achieving great things?” Unenlightened self-interest — the kind of libertarian selfishness that fails to see that not even one’s self interest is served when others in the community fail to thrive. (Ask me another day, I might answer differently.)

11. Somehow, I failed to write down my answer on that one.

12. "Based on the person, not the party." Duh. I have a lot of trouble respecting anyone who does anything else.

13. “Other than George W. Bush, who is your least favorite Republican?” Who said George W. Bush is my least favorite? (I’m not crazy about the guy, but sheesh. Talk about presumption. You’re not even going to let me decide that?)

14. Since “Memphis-style” wasn’t offered as an option, I couldn’t answer. If there had been a second choice, I would have said, “Vinegar based.”

15. I couldn’t answer. It depends on the issue. Just saying "moderate" is an oversimplification, although perhaps to some my "liberal" and "conservative" positions (using the terms as popularly defined today) average out to that. But these aren’t numbers; positions on issues can’t be averaged. Each position can be considered only for what it is, however "moderate" or "radical" it may be.

I’ll let you guess at my answers to the rest.

‘Go for it’ column

34 Replies

Bulb_011_1Energy independence?
We only have to decide to go for it

    “From now on we live in a world where man has walked on the moon. It’s not a miracle. We just decided to go.”
            — Tom Hanks, as Astronaut
            Jim Lovell in “Apollo 13”

By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
I REMEMBER when this country would “just decide to go” and do something that had never been done — something so hard that it seemed impossible — and then just go.
    I was not yet 16 when men first stepped into the gray talcum of Tranquillity Base, and I didn’t know that I was living through the last days of the age of heroic national effort. I thought the muscular, confident idealism of World War II veterans such as John Kennedy was the norm. JFK said let’s go to the moon. It didn’t matter that nothing like it had ever been done, or that the technologies had not yet been invented. We just said OK, let’s do it.
    We built rockets. Brave men stepped forward to sit atop them in hissing, flashing, buzzing, wired-up sardine cans. Slide-ruler nerds who feared no challenge designed all the gadgets that went into the rockets and made them fly true. The rest of us paid the astronomical bills, and suspended our lives to watch each launch, in fuzzy black-and-white. We held our breaths together as though we were the ones waiting to be blasted to glory, live or die.
    And in a sense, we were. That was us. We were there.
    Why did we stop doing things like that? Where did we lose the confidence? When did we lose interest in working together? How did we lose the will?
    Was it the bitter end of Vietnam, which caused us to swear off fighting for justice beyond our borders for a generation? Was it Watergate, which ended common trust in leadership? (I watched “All the President’s Men” with my children recently, and to help them fully appreciate the suspense, I had to stop the disc and try to explain a time in which most people could not imagine the president of the United States would really do such a thing.)
    Was it the end of National Service, which gave rise to a generation that had never pulled together in common cause, and couldn’t even imagine doing so? Was it the “I got mine” hypergreed of the ’80s and ’90s, which made shared sacrifice passe?
    I don’t know. Maybe all of the above. I do know I’m tired of it. I miss the country I used to live in.
    That country would have stayed united for more than a few weeks after 9/11. It would have rolled up its sleeves and sacrificed to make itself economically independent of Mideast regimes that currently have no motivation to change the conditions that produce suicide bombers.
    But we don’t volunteer for that today, and “leaders” don’t dare suggest it.
    What got me started on all this? Lonnie Carter, president of Santee Cooper, said several things last week that sent my thoughts down these paths. He got me thinking how easy it would be for this nation to move toward energy independence, reduce greenhouse gases and even save money. It wouldn’t even be hard, or require sacrifice or inventiveness. We have the tools. It’s a matter of attitude.
    Mr. Carter showed us one of those curlicue fluorescent light bulbs. Big deal, I thought. I’ve got a few of those at home; my wife bought them. They look goofy, and don’t fit into some of our smaller fixtures.
    But Mr. Carter said that while such a bulb costs a couple of bucks more, it uses only 30 percent of the energy to produce the same light, and lasts 10 times as long. That one “60-watt” bulb (really only 15) would save you $53 before it gave out.
    Think how much energy we could save if all of us bought them. The things are already on the store shelves, but most of us bypass them for the old unreliables. It’s a “matter of changing our habits,” Mr. Carter said.
    How about renewable energy? Mr. Carter said utilities already offer that option to customers. But while 40 percent say they would pay a little more for such greener, smarter energy, only 1 percent actually do when it comes time to check that box on the bill.
    Attitude again.
    Then there’s nuclear power. “If our country is interested in energy independence and affecting climate change,” said Mr. Carter, “nuclear is the best option.” It’s clean, it’s efficient, and we don’t have to buy the fuel from lunatics.
    The government is even offering incentives to build the new generation of super-safe plants. But there’s still an attitude problem, as evidenced in the approval process. Santee Cooper plans to build two such plants. Just getting approval will take until 2010, so the plants can’t produce power before 2015. We managed to go from rockets that always blew up to “The Eagle has landed” in less time than that. And this time, we already have the technology.
    “We need all due diligence,” said Mr. Carter. “But we don’t need to drag our feet.”
    Still worried about spent fuel? “We know how to handle it safely,” he said. We’ve been doing so for 50 years. We also know how to put it away permanently; it’s “just a policy issue.”
If we could take such obvious steps, maybe we could then start taking the “tough” ones.
    Maybe we could even put the SUVs up on blocks and reduce our gasoline consumption to the point that Big Oil — and maybe even Washington — would see that they ought to invest some real effort in developing hydrogen, or biofuels, or whatever it takes.
    Did you know that Brazil expects to achieve energy independence this year? Maybe it has become the kind of country we used to be — the kind of country we could be again.
It just takes the right attitude.

How they voted to kill the cigarette tax hike

32 Replies

Just in case you missed, or got whiplash trying to follow, the peremptory manner in which the House threw out the idea of even a modest increase in our lowest-in-the-nation cigarette tax, Cindi Scoppe relates a few salient facts about it on today’s editorial page — including the one about how the money would have gone to helping the state get serious, for the first time, about youth smoking prevention and cessation (beyond the fact, of course, that increasing the tax in an of itself exerts downward pressure on the rate of teenage smoking).

What Cindi didn’t have room for in her column was how they voted. I’ll supply that:

The House voted 58-53 to table a budget amendment that would have increased the cigarette tax by 30 cents a pack.

Here’s the amendment, followed by the vote:

/64 (DOR: Cigarette tax) (A)   In addition to the tax imposed pursuant to Section 12-21-620(1), there is imposed an additional tax equal to 1.5 cents on each cigarette made of tobacco or any substitute for tobacco. The tax imposed pursuant to this paragraph must be reported, paid, collected, and enforced in the same manner as the tax imposed pursuant to Section 12-21-620(1).
(B)   There are created in the state treasury, separate and distinct from the general fund of the State, the Youth Smoking Prevention and Cessation Fund and the South Carolina Health and Prevention Fund. Four percent of the revenue generated by this additional tax must be credited to the Youth Smoking Prevention and Cessation Fund and monies in the fund must be used by the Department of Health and Environmental Control in accordance with the Centers for Disease Control recommended comprehensive programs using best practices for youth smoking prevention and cessation programs. One percent of the revenue generated by this additional tax must be credited to the Department of Agriculture for research and promotion of healthy lifestyles with food grown in this State. The remaining revenue generated by this additional tax must be credited to the South Carolina Health and Prevention Fund. The General Assembly shall appropriate the monies from the South Carolina Health and Prevention Fund to critical programs that meet health needs of South Carolinians, including using funds for a Medicaid match each year, as needed. The monies credited to these funds are exempt from budgetary cuts or reductions caused by the lack of general fund revenues. Earnings on investments of monies in the funds must be credited to the respective fund and used for the same purposes as other monies in the funds. Any monies in the funds not expended during the fiscal year must be carried forward to the succeeding fiscal year and used for the same purposes./

Voting to table the amendment (58)

Altman
Bailey
Bannister
Barfield
Battle
Bingham
Brady
Cato
Chalk
Chellis
Clemmons
Cooper
Davenport
Duncan
Edge
Frye
Haley
Hamilton
Hardwick
Harrell
Harrison
Haskins
Hayes
Herbkersman
Hinson
Huggins
Kennedy
Kirsh
Leach
Loftis
Lucas
Mahaffey
McCraw
Merrill
Neilson
Norman
Perry
E. H. Pitts
Sandifer
Simrill
Skelton
G. R. Smith
J. R. Smith
W. D. Smith
Stewart
Talley
Taylor
Thompson
Toole
Townsend
Umphlett
Vaughn
Viers
Walker
White
Whitmire
Witherspoon
Young

Voting to support the amendment (53)

Agnew
Allen
Anderson
Anthony
Bales
Ballentine
Bowers
Branham
Breeland
G. Brown
J. Brown
R. Brown
Ceips
Clark
Clyburn
Cobb-Hunter
Coleman
Cotty
Dantzler
Delleney
Emory
Funderburk
Govan
Harvin
J. Hines
Hiott
Hodges
Hosey
Howard
Jefferson
Limehouse
Littlejohn
Mack
McGee
Miller
Mitchell
Moody-Lawrence
J. H. Neal
J. M. Neal
Ott
Owens
Parks
Phillips
Pinson
Rhoad
Rice
Scott
Sinclair
D. C. Smith
G. M. Smith
J. E. Smith
Vick
Whipper

Andre, in his own words

12 Replies

I thought I’d share the GovLite’s official statement.

In case you can’t be bothered to call it up, here are some lowlights:

In my role as Lieutenant Governor, I am called upon to participate in many events across the state, and I am honored to do so. Unfortunately, this often leads me to over-extend myself, and in my eagerness I have made honest mistakes.

How incredibly absurd. The office of lieutenant governor is superfluous. Its only essential function is to stand by in case something happens to the governor, an eventuality that in this case would truly be tragic for South Carolina. Presiding over the Senate? That could be handled far better by a presiding officer elected from among the Senate’s own ranks; things would run more smoothly because senators would have more respect for one of their own (a fact that is true with every lieutenant governor I have seen). The Office of Aging? There is NO rational reason for that to have been placed under the GovLite; the GOP majority did it solely to give him the fig leaf of appearing to have responsibilities. All lawmakers did was lift the existing department OUT of the agency where it logically belonged and plop it into the lieutenant governor’s office. The folks in that department keep doing the job they would do in any case, and the GovLite gets the credit for "helping" the most reliable voting constituency there is.

What does the lieutenant governor — this one, the one before and the one before that — really DO? He runs for governor, and collects a $46,545 salary for doing so. As far as the people of South Carolina are concerned, Andre Bauer could cancel his entire hectic schedule, and we’d all be better off.

One more quick excerpt:

However, I don’t expect to be treated any differently than other citizens of South Carolina.

Here, I’ll just quote Ferris Bueller’s sister: "Dry that one out and you can fertilize the lawn."

 

Why do we let them drop out?

33 Replies

This may seem out of left field, and maybe there’s an obvious answer that I’m missing, but I’ll throw this out anyway, and y’all can throw the obvious answers right back at me.

One of South Carolina’s greatest education challenges is having one of the worst dropout rates in the country. In fact, of the favorite subject of critics of public schools in our state, that one is the most on-point. Everybody keeps wringing their hands as to what to do about it.

But I got to wondering: Why do we let them drop out? Why is that even allowed?

Thinking aloud (if you want to be charitable and call it "thinking"), I posed that question to one of my colleagues, and she said, "Well, you can’t compel people to go to school if they don’t want to."

Really? We compel them when they’re younger. Why is it OK for the state to stand in loco parentis and say, "Go to school" when they’re 8, but not when they’re 16? Is anyone really prepared to seriously argue that 16-year-olds are capable of making a decision with such huge consequences for the rest of their lives?

Actually, I’m sure some can — but they’re not the ones dropping out. Almost by definition, a teenager who drops out of school is declaring his or her incompetence to make such a huge decision, with staggering repercussions not only for the individual, but for society as a whole (in that we can’t afford to have a lot of such people deciding to be a burden to the rest of society, which they will be).

It seems to me that allowing dropouts is a holdover of a time when that was a legitimate life option, when you could make a good living without a high school education. That’s not the case any more. (And by the way, to eliminate compulsory education for all ages, as a few extremists would do, would be to condemn large swaths of society to permanent underclass status. You may say truly that we already have that — but is that a good thing.)

Yes, I know that if dropouts stayed in against their will, it would be a huge challenge to the schools to try to educate them — especially since so many quit because they’re having trouble meeting the higher academic standards required today. But that’s a challenge I think the schools should have to take on. Whether through alternative schools or innovative curricula in the mainstream schools, there’s got to be a way to deal with this.

Actions speak at ear-splitting volume

25 Replies

I’m not even going to say anything about this — or at least, not right this second. I’m really busy today. I just thought I’d bring this to y’all’s attentions. The Gov Lite’s actions speak more loudly than anything else that immediately comes to mind (and if you want to see video, check this out):

{BC-SC-Bauer Speeding,0174}
{URGENT}
{Videos show lt. gov. caught speeding twice, no tickets issued}
{Eds: Will be updated}
{AP Photos}
{By MEG KINNARD and SEANNA ADCOX}=
{Associated Press Writers}=
   COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) – Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer, who has had some run-ins with South Carolina law enforcement in years past, was stopped at least twice in the past four months for speeding along the state’s highways and no tickets were written.
   During the most recent stop, the Highway Patrol clocked Bauer going 101 mph in a 70Bauer mph zone but he wasn’t issued a ticket nor a warning. Video and audio recordings of the stop were obtained by The Associated Press through a Freedom of Information Act request.
   The state Public Safety Department, which is over the Highway Patrol, planned a news conference Tuesday afternoon. Bauer did not immediately return messages seeking comment, and his office said he would not talk about the incidents until later in the day if at all.
   Bauer, who was elected lieutenant governor in 2002 and is up for re-election this fall, has until noon Thursday to file as a candidate. Another Republican has filed for Bauer’s seat as well as one Democrat.

We still get letters — lots of them — from people who fiercely defend this guy. What can they be thinking?

There’s no need to fear…

10 Replies

I got an invitation today to participate in "Two and a Half Hours To Change The Future of South Carolina." It was an invitation to an Oscar Lovelace-for-governor event, called the Lovelace Leadership Forum. It’s from 10 to 12:30 Saturday at Seawell’s, in case you want to go. The invite didn’t say whether that was a.m. or p.m., but if I went out on a limb I would say a.m.

As for me, I generally try not to do work-related stuff — barring emergencies, which come up often enough (editorials having to be rewritten or replaced completely  because of news developments) — on the weekends. I stay really busy with family stuff on those days.

I am curious, though. I really don’t know much about Mr. Lovelace. I believe this is the first time he’s ever contacted me, however indirectly. But I do know this: Somebody needs to tell him to do something about his hair. (I don’t think I’ve ever made such a superficial remark about a candidate before. Why would I do so now? What, did you not follow the link?)

Anyway, I’m writing this in order to share part of the note that was attached to the invitation, from fellow Rotarian Ken Childs, a Columbia attorney. Ken wrote:

Dr. Lovelace is bright, articulate, personable, a strong supporter of education, and knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with healthcare issues. Of course, in South Carolina, he is the "underdog."

Now, see? Ken’s gone and made me feel all cheap and petty about the hair thing. But somebody had to tell him.

Gang of 14 still rides

42 Replies

Graham provides model of what
parties should be, but are not
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
THERE’S something reassuring about sitting and talking with a U.S. senator and thinking, “This guy is smarter than I am.”
    Even better thoughts: “He’s smarter than most other senators, and the nation sees that. And he represents South Carolina.”
Lindsey1_1    Lindsey Graham makes us all look good up there. That’s a rare and welcome thing.
    It’s not just about being smart. Fritz Hollings was and is sharp as a razor, but in ways that turn a lot of people off. It’s sad to say, but too many voters would rather vote for “folks like me” than above-average intelligence. If you doubt this, let me introduce you to a few hundred office-holders.
    Mr. Graham actually manages to be humble and unassuming (which Fritz could never do) while being erudite. That’s a neat trick. It’s so neat in this case, I don’t even think it’s a trick. (To help you tell the difference, when John Edwards
does it, it’s a trick.)
    Remember my column last week, in which I wrote about the Emory University study that showed the brains of political partisans are wired to reinforce their prejudices — that their gray matter actually produces a big shot of pleasure when they refuse to see the other side’s point?
    We centrists must have a similar mechanism that kicks in when politicians do see the other side, and even work across the partisan divide. When somebody mentions fighting for a good cause alongside both John McCain and Joe Lieberman, a flood of endorphins breaches my levees ofLindsey2 cynicism, and I think, “What a smart guy.”
    But partisans should think the same thing — especially those Republicans who had such a fit when Sen. Graham joined the Gang of 14 to force a compromise that stopped the “nuclear option” from being dropped over filibusters and judicial nominees.
    Boy, were they ever wrong. And it was obvious at the time that they were wrong, even from their skewed, one-sided perspective. Sure, Democrats were high-fiving because the GOP hadn’t changed Senate rules to prevent filibusters, but they were just as blind. From the time the seven Republicans and seven Democrats made their deal, it was impossible for Democrats to carry off a successful filibuster of a qualified nominee. They couldn’t overcome cloture without the Democrats in the Gang, who had promised their colleagues — such things are taken seriously by senators — they wouldn’t back a filibuster in the absence of “extraordinary circumstances.”
    And there simply isn’t anything extraordinary about Bush nominees not seeing the world the way Democrats do. They would need something more substantial than a political difference over something like abortion.
    The practical upshot for Republicans? They gained two conservative Supreme Court justices.
“Nobody really got tricked,” Sen. Graham said. Each of the seven Democrats had a sound political reason to be there. Besides, at least six of them have constituencies closer to his than to Ted Kennedy’s.
    They came out of it fine, partly because “nobody on either leadership team wanted to take that vote.” As for Sen. Graham himself, “It helped me personally immensely within the body.” Contrary to what was being said publicly, “Everything about this deal was known to both leadership teams…. There was a big difference between the rhetoric in the morning and the negotiations in the afternoon.”
    The important things to him were that “The institution fared well; the president fared well,” and so did his nominees. Both John Roberts and Samuel Alito enjoyed relatively smooth roads to favorable up-or-down votes.
    But the fact that 14 senators had the common sense and guts to save the partisan majority from Lindsey3_3itself yielded benefits beyond that, and not just for Republicans.
    Once the Senate was “back in business,” National Guard and Reserve personnel got medical benefits. “There would be just no way we would have had Tricare by now” without the Gang’s deal.
    It also enabled Sen. Graham to play a key role in holding the Bush administration accountable for the way it treats captured enemy combatants. “We got the Congress off the sidelines and into the War on Terror,” he said. “We had been AWOL.”
    “I trust President Bush,” he said later. “I like President Bush.” But there’s just “no substitute for checks and balances.”
    He doesn’t let you forget he’s a Republican. When he speaks of his party’s recent troubles, he says, “The only thing we’ve got going for us is the Democrats, and don’t underestimate them.” Partisan or not, I did enjoy that one.
    What I really liked, though, was the soliloquy with which he ended the meeting, after being asked about the political dangers of his having been photographed with Hillary Clinton. It was a nice statement of what political parties ought to be, but are not. In fact, I’ll just turn the rest of the column over to him. Take it, Senator:

    “There are people on both sides that can’t be happy unless the other side’s disappointed. The way some people judge political success: Is my enemy unhappy? The way I judge political success: Is my country better off, and is my party on the right track?
    “My country is better off when the Guard and Reserve families and those who serve in the Guard and Reserve have health care they can count on. The country will be better off if a manufacturing company (he and Sen. Clinton have started and jointly lead a new Manufacturing Caucus) can stay and make a profit and not have to leave to go overseas….Hillary_claps
    “If she came here and said something nice about me, I would consider it a compliment. And I would return the compliment. And in the next sentence I would say… I like her, but I don’t want her to be president… because she’ll bring an agenda to the table that I don’t agree with in terms of, you know, the whole.
    “But I’m not going to say anything bad about her, because I do like her, I think she’s smart, I enjoy working with her, and… if … the only way I can win is to have to run down people I know, I mean, have to say things about people I know not to be true, I don’t want the job.
    “If that’s the kind of senator you want, I don’t want the job.”

    Well, it’s not the kind I want. So stick around.

I need half a billion. Now.

11 Replies

Buddy, can you spare half a billion?
And be quick about it?
By BRAD WARTHEN
Editorial Page Editor
HEY, PAL, can you spare half a billion? You don’t have it on you? Then please check with your rich friends.
    Oh, and one more thing: Hurry. I don’t have much time. You see, this newspaper’s for sale, and I want to buy it. And if you fully understand the alternatives, you’ll want me to buy it, too.
    Actually, it’s the corporation that currently owns the paper that’s for sale. The deadline for bids was Thursday, and we could learn today, or early next week, who (if anyone) will be buying Knight Ridder, which owns this newspaper and 30 others. How this will turn out I don’t know. There are all sorts of scenarios. Only one or two are attractive.
    It could be bought by an equity company of the sort whose dissatisfaction with our stock price has led to years of pound-foolish expense slashing that has reduced the value of our product, and led ultimately to this sale. Such a company, knowing (and caring) nothing about newspapers, would either have to keep current corporate leadership (which is highly unlikely to produce different results), or hire God-knows-whom to replace it. But this is unlikely.
    It could be bought by another newspaper company or partnership of such companies, or partnership of such a company and one or more equity outfits.
    Or — and for us, this might be the worst of all — there might be no buyer. This would reflect the fact that so many analysts are (wrongly) down on newspapers as investments.
    It could be bought by an outfit that believes in newspapers, and in leaving them alone to do their thing as long as they are producing a reasonable profit. That would be great.
    But rather than take my chances, I’d rather just buy the paper myself. That’s why I need the cash. You sure you don’t have it? Have you checked behind the cushions in the upholstery?
    You say I’m already too late, since the deadline was Thursday? You don’t understand. I don’t want to buy Knight Ridder. I don’t give two figs about Knight Ridder.
    All I care about is The State, and the people it serves.
    Here’s what I’m counting on: that whoever buys KR will turn around and sell some of the papers. The problem is that this new owner will want to sell the white elephants — Philadelphia, Akron, San Jose, St. Paul — and hang on to such wildly profitable properties as The State.
    That’s why I need at least half a billion, even though I figure the fair price for The State is about $400 million or less. I might have to make an offer the seller can’t refuse. If I can get it for less, I’ve got a few capital improvements I can use the rest on.
    Don’t think I’m rushing into this because of what’s happening. For years, I’ve had this recurring fantasy. Not that kind of fantasy. In this one, I save Bill Gates’ life or something (I’ve never worked out the details), and he offers to halve his kingdom, and I say, “Naw, that’s OK; just gimme half a billion. After taxes. Or a billion if you don’t have change.” Then I’d buy the paper, and operate it on a nonprofit basis.
    I would still expect my friends in advertising to sell just as hard and come up with just as much money each year. And this paper makes a lot of money. As I’ve written before, if we could stand alone, we’d have no trouble from Wall Street, even if the paper were publicly traded (which, under my ownership, it wouldn’t be; I’d keep it in the family via primogeniture or entail or some such).
    But I wouldn’t want to pocket a penny of profit. I’d plow every bit back into the business. Sure, I’d pay myself a nice salary — maybe twice what I’m making now. I haven’t taken a vow of poverty. But making any more than that doesn’t interest me. The only thing I would ever want great wealth for would be to buy this paper. Once I’d bought it, making it better — not making money — would be how I got my kicks.
    I’d increase the space available for news. I would restore key positions lost to cost-cutting in recent years. Our reporters and editors would have what they needed to put out the kind of newspaper of record they already know how to produce. No more important news being hacked to TV-sized bites for lack of newsprint. We’d be all our promotional slogan used to say: “In Depth. In Detail. Indispensable.”
    I’d pay those reporters and editors enough that the very best of them would stop looking around for better opportunities — and enough so that when any slackers can’t keep pace, up-and-comers from across the country would line up to replace them.
    I’d reopen the bureaus around the state that we closed over a decade ago, putting the whole state back into The State. I would again deliver the paper to far-flung areas that we’ve cut off over the years. (Few realize how much of our loss of circulation was due to readers we deliberately cut off  because routes weren’t cost-effective.)
    And don’t worry. We’d cover the capital of this state as it’s never been covered before.
    I’d be a good steward, and listen carefully to my CFO and publisher, because they know a lot more about money than I do. I wouldn’t waste a dime, but I wouldn’t hesitate to spend a million if I knew it could make the paper that much better.
    Because the paper, and its readers, and my native state of South Carolina are what matter. They, aside from feeding my family, are the only reasons I drag my lazy behind into work every morning, and stay until late at night. This poor state of ours, which lags behind the rest of the nation in so many ways, needs a good, tireless, fearless, growing, improving newspaper more than any other state in the union. And that’s just what I want it to have. That’s my dream.
    Most alternatives involve the paper being owned by some faceless entity that just wants to squeeze it like a lemon. That would be bad for me, and bad for you. That’s why I prefer dreaming to facing facts. Why not? I can’t do anything to affect the outcome.
    Not unless you and your rich friends — or a grateful Bill Gates, or whoever — come across with a few hundred million.
    And please be quick about it.
    Read more on this subject at http://blogs.thestate.com/bradwarthensblog/.

But did he ask for YOU?

4 Replies

The Greenville News had an item today about a joint appearance of the two GOP candidates for lite gov, gubernatorial scion Mike Campbell and incumbent Andre Bauer.

Get a load of this bit at the end:

    Both said the media had overplayed the conflict between Republican Gov. Mark Sanford and the GOP-controlled Legislature.
    While some problems exist, Campbell said the solution is a matter of "sitting down and working things out."
    Bauer said he would continue to serve as a bridge between Sanford and lawmakers, adding that negative news reports aside, "Gov. Sanford has gotten all that he asked for."

He has? This is going to be news to the governor. It’s also going to be news that Mr. Bauer has been Mark Sanford’s "bridge" to the General Assembly. But if it were so, it would explain a lot.

Mr. Bauer is a walking, talking argument for why governors should get to choose lieutenant governor nominees to be their actual running mates — which is the way Mr. Sanford would prefer things to be. But this should not go to Mr. Bauer’s head; it’s not a distinction. Much the same could be said of other lite govs I have known.

Column on taking sides

61 Replies

Katon Dawson gets it. Why doesn’t everybody?
By Brad Warthen
Editorial Page Editor
OVER A LATE breakfast at a New York deli in September 2004, S.C. Republican Party Chairman Katon Dawson cheerfully told me this story:Katon_1
    Years earlier, as a novice candidate who had been burned once by his own frankness, he started carrying a piece of paper that he would look at whenever he spoke to one of my colleagues. On it he had written some good advice: “Cindi Scoppe is not your friend.”
    It did not mean she was his “enemy”; it was just his reminder to be wary because a good reporter isn’t on anybody’s side.
    You see, Katon Dawson gets it. Plenty of other people don’t.
    I believe that one of my few qualifications for my job is that I am vehemently, stridently, nonpartisan. Mr. Dawson, and his Democratic counterpart Joe Erwin, would say I’m too harsh.
    But the problem isn’t just the two major parties, loathsome as they may be. It’s this ubiquitous thing of everything being divided into “sides” — you’ve got to pick, one or the other — to the point that even smart people are unable to frame issues any other way.
    Here’s another anecdote, involving the same Ms. Scoppe: A lawmaker told her there was an inconsistency on last Sunday’s editorial page.
    The editorial criticized House members for rejecting, on specious grounds, business leaders’ input in the tax reform debate. The column dissected the General Assembly’s rush to override the governor’s veto of an odious bill stripping local governments of the ability to regulate billboards in their communities.
    When Cindi told me the lawmaker said the two pieces contradicted each other, I retorted, “Huh?” If anything, they had a consistent theme: the Legislature acting against the public interest.
    But the lawmaker saw it this way: The editorial slapped lawmakers for not doing what business wanted them to do, and the column hit them for doing what “business” (the billboard industry) wanted.
    I responded, “Say what?”
    Cindi said maybe we hadn’t expressed ourselves clearly enough. At this, I got a bit shrill: “How on Earth could we have been expected to anticipate that anybody would read it THAT way?”
    And yet, people are always reading what we write that way. The whole world encourages them to perceive every public expression as pro-business or anti-business, or siding with Democrats or Republicans, conservatives or liberals, black people or white people, rich or poor, fat or thin… you get the idea. That’s the trouble. Everybody gets the idea.
    This is a profoundly flawed way of looking at the world. If you accept or reject arguments, or even facts, according to whether they help or hurt your side, how can we ever get together and solve anything in a way that serves the common good?
    And yes, I know that the news media — especially television, although print is a culprit too — help create and reinforce this dichotomous world view. But that just makes me feel more obligated to use this page to encourage multilateral discussions that help people see things as they are, rather than the way one side or the other wants them to be.
    We’re not alone in this. We ran an op-ed piece Thursday from an assistant professor at USC-Aiken who faces the exact same problem every day in the classroom.
    Steven Millies wrote about a disturbing Emory University study. When the study’s author “showed negative information to his subjects about a politician they admired, the areas of their brains that control emotion lit up, while their reasoning centers showed no new activity.” Worse, when the subjects rejected information that they did not want to hear, their brains were rewarded in a pattern “similar to what addicts receive when they get their fix.”
    The damning conclusion was “that our political opinions are dominated by emotion, and that the reasoning part of our brain is not interested in political information that challenges us. In fact, our brains will work very hard to avoid that information.”
    This means Dr. Millies has an uphill fight in trying to teach his students that “In our political choices, we should not settle for the hollow comfort of feeling gratifyingly consistent in our assurance that one party is always right and the other always is wrong.”
    The trouble is, according to polls, about two-thirds of the electorate does cling to such assurance. That makes things tough for a fair-minded professor. It also makes it tough to publish a nonpartisan editorial page, and persuade partisans that that is actually what you are doing. No matter what you wrote the day before or the day after, a partisan tends to remember only the last thing you said that ticked him off, and to take that as proof positive that you’re on that other side.
    It doesn’t help that so many editorial pages are partisan, even at the best papers. You can almost always predict which “side” The New York Times will be on, and rely upon The Wall Street Journal to take the opposite view.
    None of us is immune to wrapping ourselves in comforting notions. Look at me: I didn’t want to hear what Cindi was trying to tell me. But I try to learn. I try to anticipate the way partisans of all sorts will perceive what I’m saying, and to express myself in a way that they see what I mean. But I often fail, and often in ways that surprise me, even after three decades of observing politics.
    Now here’s another perception problem to think about: “pro-business” or “anti-business.” Well, all I can say is that I’ll try.
    In the meantime, just in case anyone is still unclear: Sometimes business people are right; sometimes they’re wrong; sometimes they’re both. And when we write about them, we’re doing our best to sort all that out.
    It’s just like S.C. lawmakers: They don’t always do stupid stuff. It’s merely coincidence that on the two issues we wrote about last Sunday, they did.

But I’ll mention it here

7 Replies

A colleague and I were having lunch today with Tom Davis, whose title I’m always forgetting but who was described in a recent news story as "the governor’s deputy chief of staff and his top liaison to the
General Assembly" (see why I forget it?).

Most of it dealt with the rough couple of weeks he had had with the blowup between Gov. SanfordDavis and House Republicans over his spending cap, and the defeat Sanford forces suffered over the billboard issue.

But it strayed when he admired my discipline (after all, it’s a Friday in Lent, and he and I are both Catholic) in not only abstaining from meat, but forgoing dessert. Unwilling to take undeserved praise, I reminded him of my severe food allergies, and he said something about how I was kind of like Meg Ryan’s fiance in "Sleepless in Seattle." I suppose that’s right. (You ever notice how often allergies and asthma are used in the movies as shorthand to indicate weakness of character or lack of attractiveness as a mate, which is how it was used in this one — completely at odds with my own experience, I might add? Let a character take a quick puff on an inhaler, and you know that sooner or later, he will be found wanting.)

Anyway, Tom (shown above, in a photo that doesn’t do justice to his Pullmanesque qualities, but is the only picture I have) then mentioned something about that character having been played by Bill Pullman. At that point, I  exercised great restraint by not observing how much Tom looks like that actor. I was proud of myself. I mean, you never know — Tom might have been insulted. I would never, ever wish to embarrass him or make him feel awkward in public over such a trifle.

Of course, the blog is another matter.

The billboard sellout

40 Replies

Just in case today’s column by Associate Editor Cindi Scoppe didn’t quite convince you as to how indefensibly irresponsible the S.C. Legislature was last week in smooching the billboard industry’s big ol’ fat behind, here are two additional pieces of information.

The first is Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto message on the billboard bill — a document that lawmakers obviously took no time to read before overriding his laudable action.

The second item will be the roll-call votes in both the Senate and House.

Here’s the governor’s veto message:

R. 233, H. 3381–ORDERED PRINTED IN THE JOURNAL

The SPEAKER ordered the following veto printed in the Journal:

February 21, 2006
The Honorable Robert W. Harrell, Jr.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Post Office Box 11867
Columbia, South Carolina 29211

Dear Mr. Speaker and Members of the House:

I believe that we must always stand fast against the government taking or regulating away the use of property. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management." Private property rights are fundamental to a free society, and I appreciate your efforts to address them in H. 3381.

The protection of private property rights is also essential to our market-based economy. Recognition of those rights provides the legal certainty necessary for individuals to commit resources to ventures. And those rights provide the basis for the development of financial markets that are essential for economic growth and development.

For these reasons, I have consistently acted to protect private property rights and fight unnecessary government regulation. For example, as a member of the 106th Congress, I voted for the Private Property Rights Implementation Act to give greater access to federal courts for individuals with property grievances against the government. In March 2004, I vetoed S. 560, the Life Sciences Act, in part because it extended the awesome power of eminent domain to dozens of new entities by including all state institutions of higher learning. In May 2004, I signed into law H. 4130 – commonly referred to as "The Small Business Regulatory Relief Act" – to require state agencies to consider their impact on small business before they issue final regulations. In June 2005, I vetoed S. 97 because it opened the door for more property, including agricultural, to be declared blighted or abandoned and subsequently condemned.

Given the importance of protecting private property rights, I recognize the need for a uniform approach to takings that is consistent with the overall purposes of the just compensation provision of Article 1, Section 13 of the South Carolina Constitution. Unfortunately, for the three specific reasons set forth below, I do not believe H. 3381 represents that uniform approach.
In my judgment, at least part of the reason why H. 3381 is not a consistent approach to the question of takings stems from the fact that the public debate on this particular bill has taken place in the narrow context of special legislation affecting one particular industry – an approach to legislative debate which, in my opinion, does not fit with the spirit of Article III, Section 34, IX of the South Carolina Constitution, which provides that: "In all other cases where general law can be made applicable, no special law shall be enacted …"

A broader public debate on the issue of just compensation for takings is now taking place in the General Assembly in connection with the eminent domain bills pending in the House and Senate (H. 4502, H. 4505, S. 1029, S. 1030 and S. 1031), and it is my hope and expectation that the three specific concerns I have in regard to H. 3381 will be considered as that broader public debate moves forward. Accordingly, I am hereby returning H. 3381, R. 233 without my approval for the following reasons:

First, the bill would not treat billboard owners and billboard tenants as we treat other property owners and other business tenants. This bill seeks to level the playing field by putting billboards on par with other asset classes but actually serves to set billboards apart. H. 3381 would treat billboards as real property for compensation, while they would be con-sidered as personal property for taxing purposes.

As a matter of public policy, I believe billboards should be treated as we treat other property owners, but not put in a position superior to homeowners, farmers and other businesses. Currently, billboard owners pay personal property taxes based on the sign’s original cost less depreciation, and accordingly, just compensation is determined in the same way. Likewise, if the government takes a home to build a road, one value system for real property is applied for taxes and compensation. In effect, H. 3381 would give billboard owners the tax benefits of being classified as personal property and the just compensation benefits of being classified as real property which is not something enjoyed by the other asset classes just listed.

Second, I do not think that we should have one standard for state government and another standard for local government. H. 3381 would establish a double standard in that the new compensation requirements for removing billboards would apply only to local governments, not state agencies.

Again, I think we ought to treat government at different levels consistently. Under H. 3381, local governments are held to a higher standard than the state when calculating just compensation, in that local governments are required to utilize the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices, including a number of mandatory considerations, when calculating the amount of just compensation due the billboard owner, whereas the state is not. I do not believe it is good public policy to maintain two sets of pricing – one for state government and another for local governments. I think when we look at something as fundamental as private property rights they should be consistently administered.

Third, I think we need to be careful about saying we believe in Home Rule as a governing principle, but then reverse local governments’ decisions when they disagree with the state on an issue like this one. With a retroactive effective date of April 14, 2005, the bill would invalidate at least seven billboard ordinances that were passed legally by local governments. I believe that tossing out the ordinances of one group of local governments while respecting the ordinances of others – both of which were passed subject to the laws in place at that time – raises once again the uniformity issue that has caused me to struggle with this bill. Why should two local governments, under the same circumstances and afforded the same privileges of Home Rule, be treated differently?

Finally, as a matter of consistency, I believe that this bill undermines the very principle it purports to represent. By limiting the use of billboards by owners, certain provisions of this bill essentially constitute a regulatory taking without providing for just compensation – quite the opposite, I believe, of what the bill seeks to achieve. In keeping with the notion of federalism, I believe that all levels of government have to more clearly define their roles and responsibilities, and the way a community looks and feels should fundamentally be a local municipal or county decision. I do not believe it is the role of the state legislature to determine community standards from Columbia by regulating the content of billboards in the many towns and counties across South Carolina.

For these reasons, I am hereby vetoing and returning without my approval H. 3381.

Sincerely,
Mark Sanford
Governor

Having pointedly, insultingly ignored that, here’s how the  lawmakers voted (and if you’d like to find out how to contact individual lawmakers, go here for senators and here for House members; if you’re not sure which ones represent you, look it up here):

The 28-13 roll call by which the South Carolina Senate voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of a bill making it harder for local governments to force the removal of billboards.
   A "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto, and a "no" vote was a vote to let the veto stand.
   Voting "yes" were 9 Democrats and 19 Republicans.
   Voting "no" were 8 Democrats and 5 Republicans.
   Not voting were 3 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

Democrats Voting "Yes"
   Anderson, Greenville; Elliott, North Myrtle Beach; Ford, Charleston; Land, Manning; Matthews, Bowman; Moore, Clearwater; Patterson, Columbia; Reese, Boiling Springs; Williams, Marion.

Republicans Voting "Yes"
   Alexander, Walhalla; Bryant, Anderson; Cleary, Murrells Inlet; Cromer, Prosperity; Fair, Greenville; Grooms, Bonneau; Hawkins, Spartanburg; Knotts, West Columbia; Leatherman, Florence; Martin, Pickens; McConnell, Charleston; O’Dell, Ware Shoals; Peeler, Gaffney; Rankin, Myrtle Beach; Ritchie, Spartanburg; Ryberg, Aiken; Scott, Summerville; Thomas, Fountain Inn; Verdin, Laurens.

Democrats Voting "No"
   Drummond, Ninety Six; Hutto, Orangeburg; Leventis, Sumter; Lourie, Columbia; Malloy, Hartsville; McGill, Kingstree; Sheheen, Camden; Short, Chester.

Republicans Voting "No"
   Campsen, Isle of Palms; Courson, Columbia; Gregory, Lancaster; Hayes, Rock Hill; Richardson, Hilton Head Island.

Not Voting
   Democrats: Jackson, Hopkins; Pinckney, Ridgeland; Setzler, West Columbia.
   Republicans: Mescher, Pinopolis; Smith, Greer.

—————————————————————————–
The 78-25 roll call by which the South Carolina House voted to override Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of a bill making it harder for local governments to force the removal of billboards.
   A "yes" vote was a vote to override the veto, and a "no" vote was a vote to let the veto stand.
   Voting "yes" were 29 Democrats and 49 Republicans.
   Voting "no" were 13 Democrats and 12 Republicans.
   Not voting were 6 Democrats and 14 Republicans.

Democrats Voting "Yes"
   Allen, Greenville; Anderson, Georgetown; Anthony, Union; Branham, Lake City; G. Brown, Bishopville; J. Brown, Columbia; Clyburn, Aiken; Cobb-Hunter, Orangeburg; Coleman, Winnsboro; Govan, Orangeburg; Hayes, Hamer; J. Hines, Lamar; Hodges, Green Pond; Hosey, Barnwell; Howard, Columbia; Jefferson, Pineville; Jennings, Bennettsville; Kennedy, Greeleyville; Mack, North Charleston; McCraw, Gaffney; Moody-Lawrence, Rock Hill; J.H. Neal, Hopkins; Neilson, Darlington; Ott, St. Matthews; Phillips, Gaffney; Rhoad, Branchville; Rutherford, Columbia; F.N. Smith, Greenville; Vick, Chesterfield.

Republicans Voting "Yes"
   Altman, Charleston; Bailey, St. George; Barfield, Conway; Cato, Travelers Rest; Ceips, Beaufort; Chalk, Hilton Head Island; Chellis, Summerville; Clark, Swansea; Clemmons, Myrtle Beach; Coates, Florence; Cooper, Piedmont; Davenport, Boiling Springs; Delleney, Chester; Duncan, Clinton; Edge, North Myrtle Beach; Frye, Batesburg-Leesville; Haley, Lexington; Hamilton, Taylors; Hardwick, Surfside Beach; Harrell, Charleston; Harrison, Columbia; Haskins, Greenville; Hinson, Goose Creek; Hiott, Pickens; Huggins, Columbia; Leach, Greer; Littlejohn, Spartanburg; Mahaffey, Lyman; Martin, Anderson; Merrill, Daniel Island; Norman, Rock Hill; Perry, Aiken; E.H. Pitts, Lexington; M.A. Pitts, Laurens; Rice, Easley; Sandifer, Seneca; Simrill, Rock Hill; Skelton, Six Mile; G.M. Smith, Sumter; G.R. Smith, Simpsonville; W.D. Smith, Spartanburg; Talley, Spartanburg; Taylor, Laurens; Thompson, Anderson; Townsend, Anderson; Tripp, Mauldin; White, Anderson; Witherspoon, Conway; Young, Summerville.

Democrats Voting "No"
   Battle, Nichols; Bowers, Brunson; R. Brown, Hollywood; Emory, Lancaster; Funderburk, Camden; Kirsh, Clover; McLeod, Little Mountain; Miller, Pawleys Island; J.M. Neal, Kershaw; Rivers, Ridgeland; J.E. Smith, Columbia; Weeks, Sumter; Whipper, North Charleston.

Republicans Voting "No"
   Agnew, Abbeville; Ballentine, Irmo; Bannister, Greenville; Brady, Columbia; Cotty, Columbia; Hagood, Mt. Pleasant; Limehouse, Charleston; Lucas, Hartsville; Scarborough, Charleston; D.C. Smith, North Augusta; Toole, West Columbia; Umphlett, Moncks Corner.

Those Not Voting
   Democrats: Bales, Eastover; Breeland, Charleston; M. Hines, Florence; Mitchell, Spartanburg; Parks, Greenwood; Scott, Columbia;
   Republicans: Bingham, West Columbia; Dantzler, Goose Creek; Herbkersman, Bluffton; Loftis, Greenville; McGee, Florence; Owens, Pickens; Pinson, Greenwood; Sinclair, Spartanburg; J.R. Smith, Langley; Stewart, Aiken; Vaughn, Taylors; Viers, Myrtle Beach; Walker, Landrum; Whitmire, Walhalla.

Silly me, expecting maturity

15 Replies

Well, let’s all just slap our needs, throw our heads back, and engage in prolonged belly laughter over my description of the S.C. Senate as "somewhat more mature" than the House. Sure, the House asserted its reckless foolishness first, but the Senate didn’t waste any time, either.

Well, I should have known better. That’s all there is to it.

But you’d think that even lawmakers who are completely within the thrall of the billboard industry would pause a moment when they see Phil Leventis, of all people, supporting a Mark Sanford veto. Those guys never agree on much of anything. If both of them see the wisdom in letting local communities set their own standards, why can’t the rest of them.

Oops, silly me again — using words like "wisdom" in such a context.

Time’s a-wastin’

5 Replies

Talk about quick. I had not even hit the "save" button on this item, which predicted that the S.C. House would override Gov. Mark Sanford’s eminently sensible veto of their bill to handcuff local governments for the sake of the billboard industry as soon as today, when they went ahead and did it.

That’s the thing that gets me about these guys. If you want them to do something smart and strategic that might make South Carolina a better place, such as guaranteeing equality of educational opportunity for all, or restructuring state government to make it more efficient and politically accountable, they just can’t find the time.

But given the opportunity to do something dumb and obnoxious, they fall all over themselves and send it over to the Senate before anybody can holler "Don’t!"

You go, Governor

3 Replies

Bully for Gov. Mark Sanford!

By vetoing the bill pushed through the Legislature by the billboard industry that would have required local governments to reimburse them at exorbitant rates if local communities decide to clean up billboard clutter, the governor has struck a blow for that which is right and true.

To the industry, this is about billboards. That’s not what it’s about to me or to my colleagues on the editorial board. Quite frankly, I don’t have any big beef against billboards; I often find them interesting, and a nice relief from the tedium of the open road. I’m sorry I don’t recall ever having seen a Burma Shave sign before they disappeared into pop culture history.

But if a community decides they are a blight, it should be able to do something about it. For that matter, if a mere neighborhood doesn’t want them, it should be able to appeal to its government — its local government — for a zoning change that would ban them.

This is a fundamental tenet of the proper roles of different levels of government. For that matter, it is allegedly a fundamental tenet of Republicans and others who call themselves "conservatives:" That government closest to the people governs best, and the bigger government should butt out.

But "Republican" lawmakers are South Carolina legislators before they are republicans. And the S.C. General Assembly has never believed in Home Rule. Ever since it had its arms twisted to pass the Home Rule Act in the mid-70s, it has done everything it could to undermine it, and to retain control of matters that are purely, obviously, local in nature.

The governor put it well: "I do not believe it is the role of the state Legislature to determine community standards from Columbia." Neither do I, governor. Neither does any sensible person who cares about good government.

And yet, look for lawmakers to respond to this veto as quickly and as obnoxiously as possible. Don’t be surprised if the House overrides the governor’s action as soon as today. I am less certain what the somewhat more mature Senate will do.

Must have been GOOD barbecue

10 Replies

Last Saturday night, I dropped by a shindig Joe Taylor was hosting at the State Fairgrounds. He was serving vinegar-and-pepper barbecue from Hemingway, and Frogmore Stew. At this event, I saw John Courson, Bob McAlister, Samuel Tenenbaum, Andre Bauer, Bob Coble, Tameika Isaac Devine, Patton Adams and…

… Mark Sanford. The governor, who isn’t famous for showing up and staying any length of time at evening social events, stuck around for at least as long as I was there. Basically, I had to split once the band cranked up and it was impossible to carry on a normal conversation with anybody.

Next thing you know, Joe Taylor is secretary of commerce.

The governor must have really liked that barbecue.